I'm currently using +2.50 reading glasses but I spend too much time on
my computer and my new monitor is really bright.  I can't stand the
eyestrain.  I would like to switch to anti-glare computer glasses
which I believe are those tinted ones you can find on pharmacies.
Well, should I buy some anti-glare computer glasses with +2.50 lenses
or should I just buy the regular computer glasses with no PLUS
lenses.  Any advice or opinions on this will be greatly appreciated...

WakeUp.txt

      Dear Parents and prevention minded friends,

      Some parents do "wake up" about their children and their bad
visual habits.

      In fact, just asking your children to read a Snellen is a
start.

      A more "knowledgeable" step is to have them read the Snellen
through a +1 diopter lens.

      If they can do that they are "safe" for some time.

      The Eskimos (in the open) have positive refractive STATES from
zero to +3 diopters, and sharp vision.

      A refractive STATE of +1 diopter (buffer) is very valuable
for a child.

      Here is the conversation with "Allen" (name changed to protect
him).

      Otis

      ++++++++++


      Dear Allen,

      You know, with all the hoopla, I truly want to respect the
"situation" of an optometrist!  I also want to respect the idea
that I did standard "dumb things" with my eyes as a child.  It is
this type of "communication" I wish to develop between a
prevention-minded optometrist and a prevention-minded parents.

      You now see how "far" I get -- and WHY.

      In fact I often ask "why".  And that must be your question
also.

      But yes, I have not responded to Brooks, other than to check
with Harrisburg and give them an idea of the "nature" of Neil
Brooks.

      And I truly think that vision-clearing with the plus is damn
tough. No doubt about it.  But I also believe it is possible --
before you start with that minus.

      With respect to Morgan, or anyone, you NEVER know what they
might do -- from day to day -- and week to week.  Some will quit
after a week or two.  Others who have a clear and strong
professional goal will not quit.

      I think that when the person (starting at -2 diopters) is
able to verify vision clearing of 1.25 diopters, and 20/50 vision
-- will continue.  But again, you never know.  I think this is
what makes "prescribing" almost impossible.  I truly do not know
how you would do it.

      Some more commentary:

===============


Allen> Regarding your post I wanted to keep "private":  I don't
	 think it is a good idea to recommend procuring minus
	 glasses against the law.

Otis> What law?  The law of science and physics, or the "law"
	 written by these majority-opinion ODs?

Otis> I have no problem recommending an MEDICAL exam for a wise
	 person.  To remove all doubt that the slight blur at
	 distance is a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye
	 -- rather than some sort of medical problem.

Otis> The real contact with the law is the necessity of passing
	 the Snellen DMV test.  As part of the OD exam, the OD can
	 write a minus-lens prescription.  Again, no problem.  But
	 the issue of OBTAINING a minus lens -- is up to the person
	 himself.

Otis> There is no law AGAINST ordering lenses from
	 zennioptical.com, say -1/2 and -1 diopter.  There is no
	 one checking this.  Further, if you wish to CHECK your
	 refractive STATE I see NO REASON why you should be
	 prohibited from doing this.  If you are mature and
	 knowledgeable -- why not?

Otis> The problem is that these ODs do not like the implication
	 that you can and should do this yourself.  And that is why
	 I disagree with them.  There "God hood" attitude stinks --
	 in a word.

Otis> I also dislike their "paternalistic" attitude, and that is
	 tied to the "God Hood" attitude.  It takes almost NO SKILL
	 to use a trial-lens kit and determine a refractive STATE.

Allen> Or can you order un-framed minus lenses from zennioptical?

Otis> You can order "framed" lenses from zennioptical, and just
	 cut the lenses out.  The purpose is "test" not a
	 prescription.  I believe that is legal.  Why not?
	 Further, with some "smarts" you could make up your own
	 trial-lens kit with a few minus lenses, and check your OD
	 prescription.  Again, why not -- they do get it wrong at
	 times -- and double checking is ALWAYS WISE.


Allen> On a personal note, I have just purchased +3.00 child-size
	 lenses from Zennioptical for my 8 year old daughter, who,
	 by the way is still hyperopic (things are not blurry for
	 her through the +1.00 lens, and my old -1.00 glasses do
	 not improve her vision).

Otis> This is WONDERFUL and SMART.  And you are practicing common
	 sense and science.  And your daughter will get the
	 "protection" that practically no other child will receive.

Otis> And after all -- that is the only thing that matter.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Allen,

Subject:  A Further Review of the effect of Neil Brooks on the
	 optometry "system".

Otis> I am pleased you "pushed" me to pull together the "filing"
	 that Neil D.  Brooks made against me -- and the concept of
	 the preventive second-opinion.

Otis> Read the following.  Do you think Neil is even sane?

Otis> [Some insulting and obscene remarks sent to me by Neil D.
	 Brooks.]

===========================

Allen> I won't comment on his sanity, but he's doing a great job
	 of trying yours and mine.  The less we talk about him, the
	 better!  Let's focus on seeking out second-opinion
	 optometrists and getting them to post on I-SEE.

Allen> I did not for one moment think that Neil's filing was
	 justified.  However, I saw what happened to Fred Deakins
	 and Brian Severson after similar bogus filings, and did
	 not want to do anything to strengthen Neil's case while
	 you were under investigation.

Allen> I am happy to learn that the case is "closed."

Allen> I do not want to bring this up on unless someone other than
	 Neil mentions it.

Allen> Regarding your post I wanted to keep "private":  I don't
	 think it is a good idea to recommend procuring minus
	 glasses against the law.  Or can you order un-framed minus
	 lenses from zennioptical?

Allen> On a personal note, I have just purchased +3.00 child-size
	 lenses from Zennioptical for my 8 year old daughter, who,
	 by the way is still hyperopic (things are not blurry for
	 her through the +1.00 lens, and my old -1.00 glasses do
	 not improve her vision).

Note:  A positive refractive state is called "hyperopia".
	 Virtually all young eyes with excellent vision have
	 refractive STATES running from zero to +3 diopters.
	 Typical and NORMAL refractive STATES run between 0 to +2
	 diopters.  A negative refractive STATE (Snellen) is
	 nearsightedness.  OSB

Conceit.txt

Dear Dr Seagal,

Subject:  Your Fundamental-science (second-opinion)
versus Retinula's Pseudo-Science

Click on:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

See what the (blue-tinted) eye does when you place a minus lens
on it.

I have heard so much bull shit from these M.O. ODs -- that I
get tired of it. And worse, the un-employable semi-psycho Neil
Brooks only adds to it.

In my opinion, optometry must always "fail", because of these
two inter-locking ignorance. There is no way you can "change" it.

Optometry supplies a magic pill that "works" in five minutes.
That is crude quick-fixing -- and must be understood that way.
BUT THAT IS NOT SCIENCE -- EVER.

Science is when you "realize" all of the above, and ask,
"...what do I actually measure -- in terms of refractive STATE.
Or how do all fundamental eyes behave. When you REMOVE the
misconceptions and as "pure" questions of this nature, it becomes
clear (to engineers and scientists), that the "blue-tint"
animation of the natural eye is accurate and correct.

The BEST you can say about the minus is that it works
instantly. That would be OK if the HUMBLE OD would admit it.

It take MATURE INTELLECT to realize that a change in
"wording" changes the context of understanding.

So people HATE words, or the re-definition of the refractive
STATES of the natural eye? So what?

In the end a person who "wakes up" to what he wants -- and
will devote STRONG EFFORT at the 20/70 level (-1.5 diopters) can
personally verify that his refractive STATE will SLOWLY move in a
positive direction, and his Snellen will clear to at least 20/40.

It takes a high quality person to do it -- and AVOID the
nutty people like Neil Brooks, and said to say, the
Majority-opinion Retinula.

But let us review Majority-opinion Retinul's "facts".

-------------------------

Ret > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates
that plus lenses don't prevent progression.

Otis> This again, is Ret's office-fib. Do the studies "conflict"?
Yes they do. But the Oakley-Young study showed that a
"high", and strong plus STOPPED entry into myopia. So let
us just say that Ret's states is OPINION and ignores the
preventive second-opinion.

Ret > and that bifocals don't significantly reduce progression.

Otis> If you are SMART about this, the real indication is this.
Avoid the minus completely. With 20/50 -- most children
have no requirement for the minus. But AT THAT POINT, begin
the use of a plus that ENDS the near environment -- and is
comfortable for the child, and is "set" for the child's
HABITUAL reading distance. This would require and EDUCATED
parent to instruct the child in this "correct use" of the
plus. This process could PREVENT ENTRY into a negative
refractive STATE.

Ret > and that having myopes remove their glasses to read doesn't
significantly reduce progression

Otis> At per the above, no minus lens would be "removed", and the
child would not wear one. Rather, the child would be
wearing a "correct strength" plus, and the child and parent
would monitor the child's Snellen. As per the pilots who
have done it, VERY SLOWLY, the child's snellen will clear.

Ret > And that under-correcting myopia actually DOES statistically
increase the development of myopia?

Otis> Another false statement based on the flawed O'Leary-Chang
study. Again, call this the majority-opinion, and the
Oakley-Young study the second opinion.

Ret > What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia
that doesn't involve one of the above disproven approaches?

Otis> Find a second-opinion OD who will review the self-serving
ignorance and errors in Retinula assumption and distorted
"facts". Study the blue-tint eye, and the effect of a -3
diopter lens on the primate eye.

Otis> LEARN to make a choice for yourself if the face of this
conflict. Take action BEFORE your Snellen goes below 20/70.
Clear your Snellen and check your refractive STATE with a
low-cost minus. Keep up the effort until you read the 20/40
line or better. UNDERSTAND the reasons why Retinula is a
disaster for the human eye, and the nature of his ignorance
and arrogance.

Ret > Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you
believe,

Otis> Click on the blue-tint dynamic eye -- and understand the
FACTS that support it. Learn to think for yourself, and if
you wish to clear your vision, use the plus to do it
correctly.

Ret > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the
science,

Otis> This is more Retinula's bull shit. The blue-tint concept is
accurate science. Ret is insisting that you ignore science,
and "accept" his stair-case myopia from a minus lens as a
consequences. This WILL have life-time consequences for
your child. There are profound reasons to distrust M.O.
Retinula on a scientific level.

Ret > and what the treatments are that you suggest?

Otis> In a "medical" sense -- no "treatment". In a scientific
sense, learn to think for yourself, understand the
preventive second-opinion, and use the method FOR YOUR OWN
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE.

Otis> Learn the conceits and ignorance of Retinula. Learn to take
care of your distant vision yourself, by clearing from 20/70
to 20/40, and avoid that minus lens unless absolutely
necessary.

Best,

Otis

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
Myopiafree2 group:

Have u seen an Improvement Since using the plus?

   o Yes
   o No


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Myopiafree2/surveys?id=1758435

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback and Happy New Year to you Too!

Morgan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Morgan,

Subject: Congratulations!!

Let me repeat your starting point:

-2.0 diopters, with 20/140 vision, several months ago.

Currently:

Refractive STATE:

-0.75 diopters, producing 20/20 vision

Estimated Snellen with no lens,

About 20/50 (best guess -- you should check this.)

When we started this you asked:

1.  Would it work? and

2.  How long.

And I posted Dr. Prentice's statement about
vision clearing as being "tough".

You have now personally verified that your
vision is clearing under YOUR CONTROL.

What convinces me on a scientific level is
that blur-tint eye -- and the effect of
that minus.  Plus-clearing is more subtle
and indeed slow, but the same science applies.

More commentary:


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Mogzieno1@... wrote:
>
> Dear Otis,
>                  Good News! I tried on the -0.75 and once my eyes
adjusted, I
> READ THE  20/20!!!!!!    Thats means that my effort is going well!.

Otis> I does!  It also suggests that continued work
with that plus as a "habit" can help you with
further "clearing".


This  also
> means that i am basically suitable to fly helicopters!

Otis>  Yes, but of course you should work to get
to 20/40 or better -- which I believe is possible
for you.  Just takes time and persistence.

> Despite This i am still going to continue the plus to see if i can
get  20/20
> without the minus and you never know fly jets!

Otis>  Personal intelligence, and more importantly,
personal MOTIVATION is crucial.

Otis> The fact that you can "clear" with the -0.75 diopter
lens tells me that there is NOTHING wrong with your
retina or any other part of the eye.

Otis> It tells me that you have the POTENTIAL to clear
towards 20/20, with doing better-than 20/40 as
a major goal for now.

Happy New Year my fellow pilot!

Otis



>
>
> Thanks
>
> Morgan
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Otis,
                  Good News! I tried on the -0.75 and once my eyes adjusted, I
READ THE  20/20!!!!!!    Thats means that my effort is going well!.This  also
means that i am basically suitable to fly helicopters!


Despite This i am still going to continue the plus to see if i can get  20/20
without the minus and you never know fly jets!


Thanks

Morgan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Don,

Subject: Discussion about your empowerment for plus-prevention.

      Here is some commentary from Alex Eulenberg.

      I think he is in software.

      There are some things that require that you PUSH people to
think. And I am always inclined to do that.

      You are right.  Most people do not give a damn -- until it is
too late.  And then they want to be "snapped" out of it -- with no
understanding of how they got into it.

      But I think this issue should/must be addressed by the
National Eye Institute -- and others.

      And the very FIRST STEP -- it to publish a CAUTION about that
minus lens.

      And you PROVED they will never do it.

      What a farce that NEI is.

      What is WRONG with them?

      Best,

      Otis



----- Original Message -----

From: Alex Eulenberg of i-see

      Otis,

Subject:  I support second-opinion optometrists.

      There's no one thing about this post that I object to.  It is
not a flame; rather flame bait.

      I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.  You need more
details.  The only people who will understand what you're saying
are those who already know what you have to say and have heard it
a million times.  It will only be very puzzling to those who don't
have any idea what you mean, exactly, by "prevention" or "the
accepted method".  I don't even know what you mean by meeting the
second opinion OD half way.  Bifocals? (Just kidding.)

      You're recommending keeping some minus lenses around,
procuring them without a prescription? At least plus lenses are
available without a prescription.

Alex>  I understand you are under investigation for practicing
optometry.

[This is a FALSE CHARGE.  Anyone, repeat ANYONE can
charge you with ANYTHING.  This was typed into
a PA website by Neil Brooks with
NO EVIDENCE AT ALL -- and that is as far as it went. I do
OBJECT to your repeating this with no foundation at all.
Otis Brown]

  I really don't want to
help your enemies by approving this post.  There are other ways to
test for pure myopic refractive error. How about pinholes?  How
about fine print?  Are you telling people to refuse to fill their
prescription?

      Anyway, this is how I would have to respond if your post went
public.  I'd rather keep it private.

      Please remember your audience.  I-SEE is for people who
already believe that prevention is possible and want the details.

      Your friend,

      Alex

========================================

My suggested "Post" for i-see:

      Dear I-See friends,

      Sometimes the discussions get "hot" -- as Alex point out.
Perhaps that is because our language is not clear in describing
the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

      But I do believe that we can prevent entry into myopia if we
are willing to accept the judgment of prevention-minded
optometrists.

      It may be that only prevention is possible.  In which case we
should seek to understand the accepted method of prevention for
the benefit of our children's long-term distant vision.

      I suggest that a protocol be developed to meet the
second-opinion OD half way.

Suggestion 1:  Be prepared to listen to the preventive alternative
	       for your own child.

Suggestion 2:  On a regular basis, have your child read his
	       snellen at home -- so you know where he stands.

Suggestion 3:  I support a MEDICAL exam -- after you confirm your
	       child has gone down to a visual-acuity of 20/50
	       (from previous 20/20 by your own checking).

Suggestion 4:  This MIGHT be a rare retinal problem.  If it is,
	       your medical person will tell you about it.  If it
	       is not, and your child's vision can be cleared from
	       20/50 to 20/20, it is highly probable that his eyes
	       have "adapted" to that near environment, and that
	       preventive methods would work for him.

Suggestion 5:  Do NOT be timid about this issue.  In fact, in
	       conjunction with reading the Snellen I would suggest
	       obtaining a -1/2 and a -1 diopter lens from
	       zennioptical to do your own CONFIRMING checking or
	       verification.  If your child is at 20/50, and a -1/2
	       to -3/4 diopter lens clears the 20/20 line, then it
	       is very unlikely your child has a MEDICAL problem.
	       THIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE, only a means for you to
	       double check what you are told.

      I-see is about alternatives to the "straight" minus lens.

      There are quite a few intelligent second-opinion optometrists
who support the above, as well as engineers, pilots and
scientists.

      Be prepared to develop some techincal knowledge of these
issues so your kids do not develop nearsighedness, or if they do,
you can help them get out of it.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Morgan,

I know that the process of clearing your vision
with a +2.5 to +3 diopter lens is a slow process.

But it is worth it. To encourage you, here
is a statement of a pilot now flying 747s (I believe)
who went through this preventive process. See:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/natvizim.html

So it can be done. But the use of the plus
must be a "habit" for you.

Others, have no interest in your visual future.
But you do.

I can help clarify some of the issues that
will come up as you work to clear and pass
the RAF visual qualification tests.

It is not easy to do this. But it is not
easy to become a pilot either. Both
require personal interest and resolve.

And BOTH are not easy.

Keep posting -- and continue with the plus.

You are going to become an expert on
a number of these subjects.

But that is the quality of an engineer
and pilot.

You are doing the "right thing" and going
in the right direction.

Best,

Otis

Dear Morgan,

I consider the use of the minus to be a "bad idea".

Here is the effect of a minus lens as clear as
it can ever be.  Look at the blue-tint animation
of the eye getting "longer" when you place a
minus lens on it:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

That is the SCIENTIFIC RESULT of the minus lens.

That is also the (unfortunate) effect of lont-term
near environments.

I know is it hard to "accept" this truth, but
the facts say it is so.

But the real issue is to make plus-prevention
effective for you.

In using a +3 diotper (or what is comfortable
for you) you are doing the RIGHT THING in
my judgment.  If you look at the blue-tint
eye, then VERY SLOWLY your Snellen will clear.

But it does take great persistance.

With this is mind, let me reply:



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Mogzieno1@... wrote:
>
> Dear Otis,
>

    I received the form from the navy about my eyetest.

Otis> Good!  They have TWO methods of measuring refraction:

1.  Snellen and minus to clear the 20/20 line (refractive STATE,
Snellen), and

2.  They paralyize your eyes with "drops" and measure your
refractive power with a retinoscope.  This method creates
a DIFFERENT value from the Snellen.  For instance, it is
possible to have 20/20 and a refractve STATE (drops) of
- 3/4 diopter.


I have to be -0.75 to pass.

Otis>  I believe you said the requirement is that
you can read 20/40 and have -0.75 diopters -- keeping
in mind these two measurement methods.  They should
discuss this issue with you.


I ordered a pair of -0.75 glasses from online and can see
  atleast 20/40 with  these on.

Otis>  From your previous value of -2.25 and -1.75 (average -2)
you have improved your vision by about 1.25 diopters.  That
is a major success in a short time.  The Prentice report
suggests the need to continue with the plus, as it
took six months to get to 20/20 from about -1.5 diopters.


I need to check them against the snellen.

Otis> This is a valuable verification for you.
Please let me know what line you can read (both
eyes, good light) with the -0.75 diopter lens on.

If i
> wear these  glasses all the time, will my vision still deteriorate
or will they
> adjust to  -.0.75?

Otis> I consider the "minus" to be a necessary evil.  To be
used when absolutly necessary, but removed at all other times.

Otis>  You are still in the process of clearing your vision,
and have PERSONALLY confirmed that clearing with you -0.75 diopter
lens.

Otis>  As we discussed getting te naked-eye 20/40 is critical
for your career.

Otis>  I know the regulations have changed in the USA, but
you must have 20/40 naked eye.  You can then fly with
a weak minus -- as necessary.  But you must get to
20/40 or better.

Otis>  Since you are 16 years old -- there is still
time to work this issue.

Otis>  But you must personally confirm your 20/40 at
home on your IVAC snellen -- as a matter of personal
pride.

Otis>  Again, I think that doing this vision-clearing
work is tough, and it takes considerable fortitude to
stick with it.

Otis> Happy New Year!


>
>
> Thanks
>
> Morgan
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Otis,
                I received the form from the navy about my eyetest. I have to
be -0.75 to pass.  I ordered a pair of -0.75 glasses from online and can see
atleast 20/40 with  these on. I need to check them against the snellen.  If i
wear these  glasses all the time, will my vision still deteriorate or will they
adjust to  -.0.75?


Thanks

Morgan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Plus-Prevention friends,

Subject:  The issue of "prescribing" versus figuring out the plus
           (with no bifocal)

      I have heard some ODs say, I used the "bifocal" and it had NO
EFFECT.  In fact the child's vision GOT WORSE.

      So I stopped doing it.

      Here are the reasons why a "bifocal" is not effective.

Best,

Otis

===============================

DrSea> I burst into tears while reading the letter by Shira
       Raphaelson.

DrG> That's really sad, and I you shouldn't feel that you are
       toiling all alone.  I, too, made some mistakes in my early
       career because I was exposed to unsubstantiated theories,
       like prescribing bifocals to prevent myopia.  Many of us
       made the same mistakes until we wised-up and scientific
       studies showed us why it didn't work.

DrG> Perhaps someday optometrists will be able to prescribe lenses
       to prevent myopia, albeit much more scientifically, and of
       much more advanced optical design.

===================================

      Dear Prevention minded friends,

      Some times we make a mistake -- to rely on some third party
to do what we must do for ourselves.

      The "typical" bifocal uses and OVER-PRESCRIBED minus, say the
child has 20/50 can function with no minus at all.

      But if the Hung-Guiffeda report is believed, then a -3/4 to
-1 diopter would be PRESCRIBED, with a +1/2 diopter lens for the
"add".

      This combination can have NO CLEARING EFFECT AT ALL.

      Why?

      Because the -1 brings everything in to 1 meter, and the +1/2
(for near) simply does little to change the near environment for a
child reading at 6 inches (-6 diopters).

      Thus the effect of the +1/2 is to change the -6 diopters to a
-5.5 diopter near environment.

      It is no surprise that this has NO EFFECT, and that strong
minus can create even more myopia.

      So when some OD tells you that a "bifocal" does not "work"
this is WHY IT DOES NOT WORK.

      If you want the plus to work for you, or your child, then it
is necessary to FIRST stop the child from reading at 6 inches (-6
diopters).  If this is NOT DONE, then ANY USE OF THE PLUS IS
POINTLESS.

      These ODs NEVER mention this -- because they would have to
explain to the parents the NECESSITY of this essential change.
And that WOULD take time, and require the intellectual involvement
of BOTH the parent and child.

      Thus, it is not reasonable to expect much if anything of a
majority-opinion OD who makes the following remark.

      If you are going to prevent (or clear from -1/2 to -1
diopter) then you must AVOID the minus.  If you are functional,
(visual acuity of 20/70 to 20/60) then no minus unless absolutely
necessary.

      Then you start the plus-process by monitoring your snellen,
and using a strong plus for all close work.

      Given strong commitment -- on your part -- it is possible to
clear your vision to 20/40 or better.

      But be prepared for your necessary commitment, and the snide
remarks of the majority opinion OD.

      At some point you realize that the majority-opinion OD not
give a damn about you protecting your distant vision for life --
but YOU SHOULD.

Best,

Otis

Dear Prevention minded friends,

      Subject:  How preventive methods are destroyed.

      The few optometrists who support the plus-preventive method
receive endless abuse. This has been the history of "medicine" --
and WE SHOULD LEARN FROM IT.

      So if you receive abuse -- then consider you have joined the
small group of people (lay and professional) who advocate
INTELLIGENT change.

      This obviously means that not only the OD must change, but we
the lay public must change also.  Otherwise we lose our distant
vision permanently.

      Best,

      Otis

================

      (Copy of letter -- Clarification in parenthesis.  OSB)

1/7/96 - Jacob's Daughter

Dear Maurice and family, 	       February 5, 1978

      I just received your letter with the shocking news of the
mistreatment of Maurice because of his courageous efforts to
promote a cause which could be of tremendous benefit to mankind.
I went through this with my Dad, but he did not make a big enough
impact to bring about the kind of retaliation which Maurice is now
being subjected to.  In fact, Dad was afraid his license might be
in jeopardy if he continued to practice; that was one of the
reasons why he retired from active practice and no longer charged
for his services.

      I don't know if you have seen the enclosed newspaper article,
(about my father's efforts with the plus-lens) but I have had some
copies made to send to relatives and friends who donate or become
members of IMPA (International Myopia Prevention Association). My
father would have been so proud of you Maurice, as I am.  I wish I
knew of some way to help, but I, too, have become discouraged by
the attitude of the optometrists here.

      I have tried to interest someone in the profession to help me
start a branch of IMPA in this area, but they don't even bother to
return my phone calls. They are too busy making money, I guess.

      After I received your letter, I went to the public library
and checked out a book that made a tremendous impression on me at
the time I read it many years ago, "The Cry and the Covenant", by
Morton Thompson.  It is the story of Dr.  Ignaz Philipp
Semmelweis' efforts to get the medical profession to accept his
simple remedy of cleanliness.  He was unsuccessful.  The following
quoted passages are apropos.

      "Do you know," said Arneth slowly, "it's true of your
discovery as it has been of every discovery in this whole history
of medicine.  When we take our medical oath we undertake to
lengthen life and ease suffering.  We are all united in seeking
new means.  And every time a man has come forward with a
demonstrable truth, a remedy for good, the profession seems to
have done its best to crush the discover and hide the discovery.
No quackery -- no criminality -- nothing seems to make us so
furious as a discovery." (Page 367)

      In reply to a statement by one of his few medical friends,
who has just told Semmelwiess that he is being called a fool, he
replies:

      "Well they could call me an adulterer and a thief -- they can
spit on me and curse the mother who bore me -- and if they wash
their hands I will smile at them.  I will humbly thank them.  I
will get down on my knees and praise the breath that calls me
fool.  Only let the murdering dogs wash their hands!" (Page 369)

      Ignaz Philipp worked grimly on.  There were evenings when he
walked the streets of Buda alone, fevered for more scope, for more
patients, desperate to spread the truth in a world thunderclap.
And when his legs were tired and his mind had calmed at last, he
made peace with things as they were.  And he planned long dreams
and nourished the small flame he had lit.  He guarded it jealously
and each month was a new hope that tomorrow, surely, tomorrow, at
the very latest, the world would wake with a start and the truth
would be everywhere.  All his hopes were in Budapest now.  From
this small clinic, if he kept proving and saving, month after
month, the news must one day be the world's." (Page 374)

      I wish I had some influence to help you Maurice, but alas,
there is nothing I can do except to let you know how I feel about
you and the dedication you are showing.  Perhaps after Rehm's book
("The Myopia Myth") is published, which he indicates will be
sometime this year, some impact may be made here in the U.S.,
which hopefully will carry over into your country.  If not,
perhaps you might consider coming to the U.S.  to practice your
profession; at least there seems to be more freedom here to
disagree.

      Please keep me advised of future developments.  I'm still
optimistic enough to believe that somehow the worst is over.

      Sincerely,

      Shira Raphaelson

Dear Alex,

      There is no doubt in my mind but that PREVENTION is very
difficult -- but NOT impossible.

      The difference is in perception of the natural eye's
behavior.

      The other problem is that we EXPECT, nay DEMAND very, very
sharp vision INSTANTLY.  And oh yeah, prevention.

      Except that we would get ANGRY with ANY OD who suggested plus
prevention when we are at 20/50.

      We are very, very superficial indeed.

      What I object to is that these majority-opinion ODs THINK
they are the ONLY experts in the world -- and that (somehow) they
can "discover" plus-prevention.

      It is rather obvious why that can never happen.

      If there is any "learning" process -- it is to understand the
consequence of that recognition -- and the incredible arrogance of
these majority-opinion ODs.

      But, there denial of the preventive second-opinion only makes
the reality of it more valid.

      Thanks for the reference.

Best,

Otis


======================


Dear Dr.  Segal,

Subject:  How Doctors reject new PREVENTIVE concepts and
	 paradigms.

I like your argument style.

Re:  Theories in medicine -- and how much fighting is done AGAINST
	 them.

      There was a medical doctor named Ignaze Simelwiez (Sp?)

      The good doctor noticed that 30 percent of the women in
child-birth DIED on the average.

      No one knew what to do.

      Dr.  Ignaz notice that the mid-wives, delivering babies had a
VERY LOW DEATH RATE, perhaps 5 percent.

      Then he noticed that the DOCTORS had a very HIGH death rate.

      Then he attempted to WASH HIS HANDS to prevent "germs".
(What ever they might be.) (New THEORY which the "Doctors" REFUSED
to understand.)

      After some time, he reduced the death rate to less-than 1
percent.  That satisfied Dr.  Igaze.

      Did the other doctors ACCEPT his concept? Did the leap up
and say, "...this is WONDERFUL".  Even with the difficulties, let
us begin IMPLEMENTING theory B".

      NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

      In fact the ran THEIR OWN STUDY that PROVED that washing your
hands had no effect.  In fact they claimed that the "wash-hands"
group had a HIGHER death rate that the DON'T wash hands, or that
the rates WERE THE SAME FOR BOTH GROUPS, OR 30 PERCENT.  Therefore
no doctor should ever be required to wash his hands from going to
dissecting diseased cadavers to delivering babies.

      It took 30 more years of 30 percent death rates, before a FEW
DOCTORS accepted the notion that washing your hands was NECESSARY.

      (As the second-opinion.)

      So when you present the concept that the natural eye is a
dynamic system (theory B), you know what you can expect from the
majority-opinion dolts.

      Best,

      Otis

   ==============

Dear DrG,

Dr.  Leukoma wrote:

DrG > There are many types of cancers and many theories of myopia.
	 Which theory of myopia explains your success in
	 eliminating it?  DrG

Seagal> The theory of myopia I am about to share with you is very
	 simple but effective.


      However, before I go on, I would like to get some
professional opinions from you.

      In world XYZ,

      Conventional Doctors only believe in theory A:

      There is no cause for a wound.  High impact does not cause a
wound. No one knows what causes a wound.  Studies/research have
shown/proven that high impact does not cause a wound.  The wound
will get larger and larger regardless of the type of treatment
used.  When there is a wound, doctors will prescribe sulfuric acid
to the patient to kill the bacteria in order to avoid infection.
Studies/research have shown/proven that the wound will get larger
and larger whether or not sulfuric acid is used.  When the wound
become really big, the doctors will remove the limb of the patient
where the wound is.  Millions of people's limbs have been
surgically removed.

      New Doctors believe in theory B:

      High impact as a result of dangerous activities causes a
would. When there is a wound, use neosporin and bandages to treat
and cure the wound.  If the wound is very small, simply leave it
alone. Knee protectors, helmets, etc. should be used to prevent
a wound.  No one's wound gets larger and larger treated this way.
Thousands of people have been treated with a success rate of 100%.

      My questions are:

      Should the conventional doctors who only believe in theory A
start doing what the new doctors are doing?

      Is there any reason why theory B should not be used by
conventional doctors and should not be thought in conventional
medical schools?

      If there is a reason, what is it?

      Is there a need to do control studies or blind studies to
prove that theory B is effective and should be used by
conventional doctors?

      Is survey of a thousand people enough to prove that theory B
is effective and should be used by conventional doctors?

      What needs to be done before theory B is thought in
conventional medical schools and used by conventional doctors?
(Please list them.)

Thank you,

Dr.  S. Segal

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  The difficulties with plus-prevention.  Discussion with
        Dr.  Seagal

Re:  The FALSE idea about accommodation.

Re:  Majority-opinion ODs versus Second-opinion ODs.

      As you know I RESPECTED the optometrist Jake Raphaelson.

      He had the CORRECT concept for PREVENTION.  And the reaction
of the public???  Profoundly stupid -- through ignorance and fear.

      I think ALL PARENTS should be presented with EXACTLY that
issue when the child is reading the 20/40 to 20/50 line, (pass the
DMV) and a minus 0.75 diopter will clear the 20/20 line.  (i.e.,
refractive STATE is -3/4 diopters).

      At that point the OPTOMETRISTS (regardless of his OPINION)
should sit down with the parents and review the FACTS concerning
the natural eye's proven behavior.  (i.e., the refractive STATE of
the eye always FOLLOWS the applied -3 diopter lens.)

      The PARENTS should be informed that they have a choice for
their child, and that they should review this preventive
second-opinion.  They should understand that if the plus is not
used at that point, the refractive STATE of their child will go
down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- and once that
starts myopia can not be "reversed".

      Since 20/50 vision is FUNCTIONAL, there is NO REASON to be
wearing a minus lens -- at all.  Since the child is less than 16
years old -- there is no legal requirement to do so.

      But doing NOTHING does not "work".  It must be a choice
between to contradictory methods.

      And this is a choice that truly has LIFE-TIME CONSEQUENCES.

      Omitting this from a "profession" is a profound failure for
all of us.

      ====================

Dear Otis and all,

Seagal> What is really behind them (ODs) and what is really behind
        all these craps?  Money(profit)?  Stupidity?  Evilness? or
        All.

Otis> It is the simple fact that you can IMPRESS a ignorant person
        in 5 minutes with a strong minus lens -- and you do not
        have to TRUST the person's intelligence and MOTIVATION on
        the subject.

Otis> And it is true that plus-prevention is an INTRUSION in that
        person's life.  It is an intrusions for the child's
        long-term welfair -- but the parent and child must TRULY
        understand it that way.

Otis> What is truly EVIL is this incredible ARROGANCE about this
        subject.  And that is tied to money and "social position".
        What is even WORSE is the ability of these majority-opinion
        ODs to twist facts and effectively CONTROL the agenda of
        the National Institute of Healt, and the National Eye
        Institute.

Seagal> Do you think they know the truth and try to hide it from
        the public by denying the truth?

Otis> I think they have intimations of scientific truth related to
        the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- but they can
        NEVER face the full consequences of it. Profoundly tragic
        for all of us.  It makes the first steps of true PREVENTION
        very, very difficult.


Seagal> If this is the case, then they are extremely evil and just
        want the money. They are not stupid at all then since they
        are extremely smart at denying the truth.

Otis> There are powerful forces (desire to maintain your
        "position") that are fundamentally anti-scientific in
        nature. This is exactly the reason why Galalio was hauled
        before an ecclesiastical court and forced to recant his
        scientific belief that the earth moved around the sun.

Seagal> I really hope to hear your opinions from all of you about
        this.

Otis> I believe this -- You can not help a person -- until the
        person FIRST resolves to help himself.

Otis> ONLY when a person is willing to fact these facts is
        prevention possible.

Otis> Plus-prevention at the threshold, is similar to obesity
        prevention at the threshold.  It takes a person who is
        willing to accept an "intrusion" in his life -- for his own
        good.  If the child and parent do not understand THAT ISSUE
        CLEARLY, then obesity prevention and myopia-entry
        prevention will prove to be impossible.

Otis> But plus-prevention starts in the home with the parent and
        child -- in my opinion.

Best,

Otis


Thank you all.

Sincerely, Dr. Seagal

=================

Subject:  How to trash accurate accommodation.

In order to AVOID perceiving that:

1.  Accommodation system is controlled by the retina (micro-blur
        continuous motion) they must INVENT another word,
        "de-focus".

2.  Then they must demand that ONLY the "de-focus" word be used.

      Let us just say that the concept that the accommodation
SYSTEM FOLLOWS its environment (between to broad limits) is the
SECOND-OPINION, and is not over-thrown by the majority-opinion
"de-focus" THEORY.

      To further respond:

      ===========

DrG> Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr.  Seagal,
        where real physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order
        to heal them.  There is an old retired engineer who likes
        to harangue us with studies from about the time I graduated
        from optometry school some 23 years/ago as if time has
        stood still.

Otis> No, time has stood still for Dr.G since it was found that
        AFTER a child induces a negative refractive STATE in his
        eyes, an minus lens would quick-fix it in 5 minutes.  THAT
        is Dr.  Gs theory, and his "real-world".  A very primitive
        concept and method indeed.

DrG> It was only 7 years/ago that researchers explained how the
        retina of certain primates responded to defocus and not to
        accommodation.

Otis> This is just bull shit.  He PREFERS to believe that the
        accommodation system is NOT controlled by micro-blur at the
        surface of the retina -- because he does NOT wish to draw
        the correct conclusion about the natural eye's behavior in
        terms of refractive STATE.  So he must trash the
        accommodation system in every way that he can think of.


DrG> I'll consider your pre-conditions to be non-starters and
        insofar as I am concerned, the discussion is over.  If you
        have something credible, then publish it.  Myopia is a hot
        topic.


Otis> And if you ATTEMPT to publish it, your paper will be
        reviewed and TRASHED because the professor of optometry
        does not like the implications of an accurate concept of
        accommodation!!!

Best,

Otis

DrG

Dear Friends,

Subject:  The majority-opinion OD calls people who argue
           scientific facts, "liars".

      I would agree that prevention -- by ANY METHOD -- is
difficult.

      But when facts are presented, it is not a good idea to call
the "presenter" a liar.

Best,

Otis

=================

Dear Prevention minded friends,

      Apparently, scientists, engineers, and others who think in
terms of objective facts are wrong -- by majority-opinion ODs.

      So how does a majority-opinion optometrist like Mike Tyner
solve this problem of objective scientific facts and there
interpretation?

      That's easy.  He just calls the people and second-opinion
optometrists who report objective facts "liars".

      As always, read and enjoy, or weep, as the case may be.

      Otis

      +++++++++++

Judy> 1) Anatomical myopia is myopia due to mismatch between the
        total refractive power of the refractive elements of a
        given eye and the length of that eye.  It is determined
        with the accommodative system at rest (usually with
        cycloplegia).  Accomodativ spasm is myopia due to over
        accommodation.

Judy> 2) Plus lenses at near have been clinically trialed in
        humans many times and plus lenses worn full time have been
        trialed a few times as prevention for myopia.  In some
        trials, the plus lenses slowed myopia progression slightly,
        usually only for the first year of wear and to an amount
        under 1D.  Human myopic eyes using plus continued to have
        myopic progression even in the trials where myopia was
        slowed. In one study, relative plus resulted in increased,
        not decreased, myopia progression.


      ++++++++++++

Otis> 1.  Anatomical myopia (refractive CHANGE, or necessary
        eye-length CHANGE) will be produced when you apply a -3
        diopter lens to a population of fundamental, or natural
        eyes.

      This is neatly shown by Wildsoet's dynamic-eye paradigm, as
blue-tinted eyes.

      See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

      Thus if you forced a soldier to wear a -3 diopter lens for
six months, (from zero diopters), his refractive STATE would
change by -2 diopters.

      [Reference, Raphaelson's statement about Russian draftees
avoiding the draft by inducing myopia in their eyes with a strong
minus lens.]

      If you took that in for an eye-exam, Judy would have the
soldier read the chart.  20/140 is as good as the soldier could
do.  And yes, by placing a -2 diopter lens on his eyes, he could
again read the 20/20 line.

      Thus, by this logic, Judy would declare that this soldier had
"anatomical myopia" -- as the majority-opinion.

      The second-opinion would say that the natural eye is dynamic
and "follows" that applied -3 diopter lens as a NATURAL, OR
"CONTROL" process.

      But opinions differ on the proven dynamic behavior of all
natural eyes.

      For the neat animation graphics of the natural eye's
behavior.

      Best,

      Otis

      ==============

Judy> So the answer is no, plus lenses cannot prevent myopia.

      ============

Otis> In this passage, Mike OD declares all facts that he does not
        like "a lie".  I suggest a healthy respect for BOTH the
        scientific facts, and Mike's rejection of them.


Subject:  A Scientist, Dr.  Colgate, suggests a lens choice for
        plus-prevention.

From:  Mike Tyner OD

Otis> 1.  Anatomical myopia (refractive CHANGE, or necessary
        eye-length CHANGE) will be produced when you apply a -3
        diopter lens to a population of fundamental, or natural
        eyes.

MikeOD> According to Otis.

MikeOD> Schools of medicine and optometry teach that it doesn't.
        So you're lying.

Otis> This is neatly shown by Wildsoet's dynamic-eye paradigm, as
        blue-tinted eyes.

Mike> Wildsoet's "paradigm" does not apply after age 3 or so.  So
        you're lying.

Otis> Thus if you forced a soldier to wear a -3 diopter lens for
        six months, > (from zero diopters), his refractive STATE
        would change by > -2 diopters.

MikeOD> It clearly doesn't happen, so you're lying.

Otis> Thus, by this logic, Judy would declare that this soldier
        had "anatomical myopia" -- as the majority-opinion.

MikeOD> You're lying about the logic part.  There is no logic to
        arguing something that doesn't happen.

[Mike is stating that the natural eye WILL NOT change its
        refractive STATE by -2 diopters when you place a -3 diopter
        lens on it.  The facts say otherwise.  This is Mike's
        office "fib" where he assures the patient that the minus is
        perfectly safe, and that the stair-case myopia the child
        has developed IS NOT THE RESULT OF WEARING THAT MINUS LENS.
        Yes, I do understand Mike and his office fibs.  Why can't
        he just be honest about this issue?  OSB]

Otis> The second-opinion would say that the natural eye is
       dynamic and "follows" that applied -3 diopter lens as a
       NATURAL, OR "CONTROL" process.

MikeOD> The second-opinion is based upon your own imagination.

Otis> But opinions differ on the proven dynamic behavior of all
        natural eyes.

MikeOD> Your opinion doesn't change what happens.  -3 diopter
        myopes don't usually become -5 myopes in 6 months.

-MT

===================

Otis> I have little doubt that if you over-prescribed a YOUNG -3
        diopter myope with a -6 diopter lens, in about six months
        his refractive STATE would change to -5 diopters.  But this
        is an scientific "though experiment" -- which Mike seems to
        NOT understand.

Otis> Mike totally misses the point.  The Russian draftee wished
        to INTENTIALLY change his refractive STATE from zero to -2
        diopters with a -3 diopter lens SO THAT A PERSON LIKE MIKE
        would believe that the soldier had anatomical myopia
        (eye-length), when in fact, the "myopia" is simply the
        natural eye changing its refractive state to the applied -3
        diopter lens.

Otis> Mike never wants to think-straight about the implications of
        BOTH the scientific data, and his misunderstanding of the
        dynamic nature of the natural eye.  But I do not call
        people "liars" because they can't think straight.  Let us
        just call Mike's idea the majority-opinion for now.

Otis> Dr.  Raphaelson is now confirmed correct in terms of "pure
        science".

Otis> He is also correct about the public's REJECTION of the
        preventive plus -- as stated in, "The Printer's Son".

Otis> It is hard to see "optometry" as anything but supplying the
        even-more ignorant public with a quick-fix WHICH THEY LOVE,
        but only creates stair-case myopia as a direct consequence
        of not preventing it with the plus at the threshold.  But
        that would required a WISE parent to understand these
        issues -- and "give up" on a majority-opinion OD like Mike.

Best,

Otis

Dear Dr. Colgate,

There is no doubt in my mind but that you did the "right thing" in
clearing your vision from 20/70 to normal with a plus.

There is equally no doubt that these majority-opinion ODs are
of no help with plus-prevention.

The second-opinion OD can be of GREAT VALUE -- but the parents
must AGREE TO THE USE OF THE PLUS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It takes a man with considerable resolve to use a strong
plus "correctly" -- and that is a matter of personal judgment and
knowledge.

Here is the discussion for your interest.

Sincerely,

Otis Brown

==========

Salmon Egg is a Ph.D.

Judy is a conventional OD.

Subject:  The majority-opinion on plus PREVENTION.

Judy OD says NO.


Salmon Egg wrote:  On 12/16/06 5:16 PM, in article
       Ht-dnRVaZr9nBxnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijn...@..., "Mike Tyner"
       <mty...@...> wrote:

MikeOD> As a teenager, Colgate "cured" himself of accommodative spasm
       and became convinced that plus lenses would also be
       effective against anatomical myopia.

Egg> I read this sentence very carefully.  I am not sure how to
       interpret it.  When you say "anatomical myopia" do you
       restrict the term to in situ anatomy?  I can understand how
       using plus lenses might not improve existing myopia.  The
       question is:  Can positive lenses prevent eye anatomy from
       becoming even more myopic?  That is, can it prevent the
       eyeball from lengthening the way it happens to many
       bookworms?

Judy> 1) Anatomical myopia is myopia due to mismatch between the
       total refractive power of the refractive elements of a given
       eye and the length of that eye.  It is determined with the
       accommodative system at rest (usually with cycloplegia).
       Accomodativ spasm is myopia due to over accommodation.

Judy> 2) Plus lenses at near have been clinically trialed in
       humans many times and plus lenses worn full time have been
       trialed a few times as prevention for myopia.  In some
       trials, the plus lenses slowed myopia progression slightly,
       usually only for the first year of wear and to an amount
       under 1D.  Human myopic eyes using plus continued to have
       myopic progression even in the trials where myopia was
       slowed.  In one study, relative plus resulted in increased,
       not decreased, myopia progression.

Judy> So the answer is no, plus lenses cannot prevent myopia.

Dr Judy

===================

Subject:  The SECOND OPINION on plus-prevention.

Otis> The study conducted by Oakley-Young involved the use of a
       "high placed" plus.  The plus was placed so the child could
       not AVOID LOOKING THROUGH THE PLUS.  These other "plus"
       studies used a lower, small-segment plus, so the child WITH
       NO INSTRUCTIONS ON USE, could completely AVOID LOOKING
       THROUGH THE PLUS.  Even so, it is difficult to run a
       plus-prevention study -- if the person himself does not
       know, nor understand the reasons for the plus.

Otis> But under the above circumstance, the Oakley-Young study,
       using a HIGH PLUS, resulted in the single-minus going DOWN
       at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, while the rate of the
       "plus" group was close-to 0 diopters per year,

Otis> And this was over a period of four years.

Otis> The implications of this result, is that a "pure-plus"
       study, or effort COULD BE EFFECTIVE, if:

1.  The person were instructed in the PROPER USE OF A STRONGER
       PLUS.

2.  Had the intellect and motivation to use the plus PROPERLY in a
       four-year college.

3.  Undertood college statistics.

4.  Had the gumption to be a participant in this type of study on
       an intellectual level.

5.  Was a pilot, or knew the value of retaining a refractove state
       of zero or better during a four year college.

6.  Understood plus-prevention as the second-opinion.

Otis

==========

Judy> So the answer is no, plus lenses cannot prevent myopia.

Otis> So the second-opinion answer it that with strong motivation
       an intelligent pilot could avoid entry into a negative
       refractive STATE with a strong plus used for all close work.
       But that issue must be a matter of judgment of the person
       who wishes to retain clear distant vision through a four
       year college.

AlexPara.txt

Dear Alex,

[Reader -- please reference the blue-tinted eyes responding to a +
        and - lens to follow this discussion.  OSB]

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

      You have seen the pictures of the little girl with her nose
practically on the page?  i.e., reading at -10 diopters (4
inches on my site).  Or the kid writing at -10 diopters?

      I did this -- and was told that, "you can do ANYTHING you
wish with your eyes -- and the natural eye's refractive STATE will
not change."

      I think that is a convenient office-fib.  I truly regret the
consequences for myself and all others.

      It turns out that C.  Wildsoet's dynamic-eye paradigm is
close to EXACT science.  (We can worry about that definition
later.)

      But just try to TALK to a parent about plus prevention, when
the child is at 20/50, and the minus give 20/15.  You will get an
EXPLOSION.

      This is EXACTLY the story presented by Jake Raphaelson -- and
that was my epiphany.

      Because I realized that dealing with the public -- off the
street -- was the ONLY possibility for dealing with ignorant (with
due respect) none-motivated, and potential litigations people.

      And I want NO PART OF THAT.

      As you know Neil Brooks has filed a "complaint" against me
for practicing "medicine".  I think that effect is enough to KILL
any prevention-minded OD.  If you think not, please let me know,
and explain why you think an OD can overcome these charges?

      To further respond:

      ----- Original Message ----- From:  "Alex Eulenberg"
<alex@...>


Subject:  Message received:  Mechanism of recovery from myopia


Hi Otis!

Alex> Do you know Dr.  Wildsoet on a first-name basis? If not, I
        think referring to her as "Christine" is a bit impolite.
        Please clarify.

Otis> No I do not.  Please change Christine to Dr.  C. Wildsoet.

      Also, again, your obsession with the "big picture" is
detracting from the details:

      [We have a difference of opinion here.  I say, get the BIG
PICTURE correctly in the FIRST PLACE, i.e., "black box" testing.
This is the power of the dynamic-eye paradigm. In other words as
WHAT the eye will always do when you place a -3 diopter lens on it
-- and respond in terms of measured refractive STATE.  That way
you avoid these endless arguments about the dynamic nature of the
fundamental eye.  OSB]

1.  No one says the eye is not dynamic.  To wit, we all believe
        that the eye changes its refractive state in response to
        visual environment.

      [But the majority-opinion ODs keep on insisting that a minus
lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of natural eyes.  The
facts of the dynamic-eye paradigm say otherwise.  I only suggest
that the person concerned with this issue LOOK AT THE FACTS as
fundamental science.  OSB]

2.  Everyone now admits that they eye becomes myopic in an
        environment of restricted vision.

      [Then everyone who "admits" this has the obligation to
EXPLAIN the parent the RISKS a child has when he reads at -10
diopters.  I have yet to see the NIH publish a statement of the
risks (now proven) of doing something foolish like that.  OSB]

3.  The question is whether the eye, once it proceeds into myopia
        at the 20/40 level, is capable of reversing its course in
        response to increasing the optical distance of targets
        (called "myopic defocus" in the literature), e.g.  by using
        plus lenses, or, whether at this point such recovery is
        impossible and minus lenses may be resorted to without any
        harmful effect.

      [That depends on ACCEPTANCE of the dynamic-eye paradigm, and
on a SCIENTIFIC LEVEL that is what we are taking about.  OSB]

4.  Mainstream myopia researchers have pussyfooted around this
        question, providing much evidence for plus-lens myopia
        prevention while refusing to entertain such a possibility.

      [Alex, at some point you should feel "empowered" to help your
own child with plus-prevention.  I do not know when that will be,
or if it will ever "be", but it is the "intellectual" struggle to
understand the facts now available (dynamic eye) that MIGHT decide
the issue for you.  It is clear that these ODs are under threat of
un-employed semi-psychotic individuals like Neil Brooks.  If I
were an OD, I would be FORCED to follow the traditional minus-lens
quick-fix of the last 400 years.  But I would expect that an
"educated" parent could do better than that.  But, as you now
know, I am "dreamer".  OSB]

      If you wish, change "Christine" to Dr.  Wildsoet, and post on
i-see for me.

      Best,


      Otis

      ===========

      Previous i-see post:



      Dear Alex,

      We are people who like "visualizations" of this "change"
process the eye uses to control its refractive STATE.

      I know that other people do not visualize the natural eye as
dynamic -- but I do.  What I look for is the over-all "big
picture".  And this is provided by Christine as the blue-tinted
eye.  See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

      While Christine only shows this dynamic-eye paradigm, I feel
certain that if you put this eye a "caged" environment for seven
years, the eye's refractive STATE would change from +0.7 diopters
to -1.6 diopters for the entire population of natural eyes.

      It is good to learn new ideas and concepts -- as this is a
good way to think about it.

      Your title simply suggests confirmation of this natural
behavior.

      Best,

      Otis



-- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Eulenberg" <alex@...> wrote:

      Many of us are used to thinking of (functional) myopia as a
matter of "too much contracting" and the only way to recover is to
learn to relax, since seeing near objects is accomplished through
a contraction of the ciliary muscles, and seeing distant objects
is accomplished through relaxing them.

      In long-standing myopia, however, it has been proven beyond a
doubt that the eye actually does elongate.  The generally accepted
understanding is that it is this increased axial length which
makes it impossible for the eye to see distant objects even when
the ciliary muscles are fully relaxed.

      The only way to recover from myopia, then, would be to shrink
the eyeball.  But that, say the experts, is impossible, since the
sclera, or outer layer of the eyeball, has become "irreversibly
stretched".

      As a myope, my personal experience with "negative
accommodation" has been that it is anything but relaxing.  I often
feel my pulse and breathing rate quickening as I feel my eyes
working to bring those distant objects into focus.

      So here's an interesting discovery:  the mammalian eye
actually has contractile tissue in the sclera -- myofibroblasts --
which keeps the eye from lengthening, and can even shorten it
given an appropriate "pressure" stimulus.

      Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science.
2004;45:758-763.

      Pressure-Induced Changes in Axial Eye Length of Chick and
Tree Shrew:  Significance of Myofibroblasts in the Sclera John R.
Phillips and Neville A.  McBrien

http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/45/3/758

      Key quotes:  "unexplained absolute reductions in axial length
and vitreous chamber depth have been reported for tree shrew eyes
recovering from induced axial myopia and such reductions in axial
length would be consistent with activation of a contractile
process within the sclera" and "Myofibroblasts have been reported
in both the choroid and sclera of humans and monkeys ...  the
results of the present study provide evidence for the existence of
a contractile mechanism in the sclera that, if activated, could
reduce vitreous chamber depth in the tree shrew", and of course,
monkeys, and humans!

      And here's the link to the 1998 article on human and monkey
eye-shortening contractile tissue (with link to free PDF):

http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/10/1765

      Nonvascular contractile cells in sclera and choroid of humans
and monkeys V Poukens, BJ Glasgow and JL Demer (Investigative
Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 39, 1765-1774)

      --Alex

Dear Morgan,

Let me repeat your "start" position for others
who may read this.

-2 diopters, and 20/100 to 20/140 vision.

Currently, vision between 20/40 to 20/70.

Using the IVAC Snellen, guess 1/2 the letters
correctly, about 20/50.

I will also post some remarks by Alex of i-see
on plus-prevention -- and why you must
do it "yourself".

Some further remarks:


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Mogzieno1@... wrote:
>
> Dear Otis,
>                This week has been interesting, instead of just
seeing "blur" my vision is cleared to see double vison and this is
beginning to clear further. Most of the time i see clear flashes
which i can add to and sometimes create myself consciously.
>

Otis> This is just my "judgment".  The "clear flashes"
should be cross-checked with an out-side Snellen.  By
using your Snellen and comparing signs in the open
you should be able to JUDGE the amount of clearing
you see -- with out immediate reference to the Snellen.

> I am starting to use the +4 more often.

Otis>  That is a major step.  That is what Prentice
recommended.


> I received a form from the british army, their requirements for
pilots is -0.75 (6/12), therefore i am assuming this is the same for
the Royal Navy. Therefore i have a few weeks to reach this point
before i go for my eye exam.

Otis> Not much time, and vision-clearing proceeds at
a slow place.  I think you said you are 16 years old.
Even if you do not PASS at this time -- I think they
will not give you an absolute "fail".

Otis> Let me know if this exam is done with "drops" or
no "drops". It does make a big difference.


> Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!

Otis> And you also.

Best,

Otis



>
>
> Morgan
>
>

Dear Otis,
                This week has been interesting, instead of just seeing "blur" my
vision is cleared to see double vison and this is beginning to clear further.
Most of the time i see clear flashes which i can add to and sometimes create
myself consciously.

I am starting to use the +4 more often.

I received a form from the british army, their requirements for pilots is -0.75
(6/12), therefore i am assuming this is the same for the Royal Navy. Therefore i
have a few weeks to reach this point before i go for my eye exam.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!


Morgan


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Or for that matter, under what circumstances
will Bates "work"?

As you know, I limit what I state concerning
plus-prevention.

Here is the reason why:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/poschang.txt

Remember, Bates, and plus-prevention advocates
"object" to that minus lens.  But equally,
if you are going to get rid of the minus,
it is essentail that you pass these DMV
tests -- by personally confirming that
you do.

And that is indeed difficult -- which I do
acknowledge.

As Prentice said, vision clearing from -1.5
diopters to 20/40 or better is indeed possible,
but the process takes a lot of PERSONAL RESOLVE
to do it.

And no one but you can supply that resolve.

But if you think you are strong enough, then
keep at it -- as Prentice suggests.

Best,

Otis

Dear cwalinski,

As you know I believe in building a "fire" under
the person who wishes to clear his vision -- on the
Snellen.

Further, you know that I am certain that Bates
got it RIGHT about that minus lens.

I do have a Snellen on myopiafree.com
as the IVAC Snellen.  Just click on it
and then click on "Display".

The goal as far as I am concerned is to
get you to pass the REASONABLE DMV Snellen,
which is 20/70 for Florida, 20/60 for Georgia,
20/50 for Texas -- and like that.

The purpose is that you get a sense of
"empowerment" as your vision clears.  i.e.,
confidence that you are passing the reasonable
standard as stated.

Some more commentary:


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "cwalinskidawg"
<cwalinskidawg@...> wrote:
>
> Hey
>
everyone,

>

>                 I'm reporting an improvement in my vision.  Now I
don't
> know how much I improved cause I don't have a Snellen Chart but I
can
> say this before I started wearing the plus lens my vision was foggy
and
> very very blurry.  I decided to give them a try and wore then for
close
> work for 4 weeks from today.

Otis> Most people start out that way.  But to truly
be "objective" it is wise to confirm your Snellen.


I am proud to say that the "fog" and very
> very blurry has changed to me seeing the general shapes of objects.
> Sometimes I even get those 20/20 clear flashes and its amazaing.

Otis>  I would be happy if you get 20/40 clear flashes.   If
you pass the 20/40 you are doing very well indeed.
That is real success in my judgement.  Pass the DMV,
avoid the minus.

  Now I
> still do the long swing and sway method from Bates, those help
too.

> People keep your hopes up it is possible to improve, you just have
to
> take yourself out of the propoganda picture.  Glasses, contact
lens,
> surgeries are all business.


Lasik:  $4,000

Minus Glasses: $200 to $400

Plus lenses:  $8

Motivation:  Very great to use the plus properly.



I can tell you that Id rather walk around
> myopic and it sucks ass then walk around with cruthes and ruin my
> vision more. Best wishes to all you, kep the faith up.
>

Otis>  I WISH we all got this information at the threshold,
and out butts kicked to use the plus (and Bates) properly.

Best,

Otis

Hey
everyone,

                 I'm reporting an improvement in my vision.  Now I don't
know how much I improved cause I don't have a Snellen Chart but I can
say this before I started wearing the plus lens my vision was foggy and
very very blurry.  I decided to give them a try and wore then for close
work for 4 weeks from today.  I am proud to say that the "fog" and very
very blurry has changed to me seeing the general shapes of objects.
Sometimes I even get those 20/20 clear flashes and its amazaing.  Now I
still do the long swing and sway method from Bates, those help too.
People keep your hopes up it is possible to improve, you just have to
take yourself out of the propoganda picture.  Glasses, contact lens,
surgeries are all business.  I can tell you that Id rather walk around
myopic and it sucks ass then walk around with cruthes and ruin my
vision more. Best wishes to all you, kep the faith up.

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Any statement I make -- I have checked my self in
every possible way.

I do acknowledge that only prevention on the threshold
is possible.

I also wish -- profoundly -- that I had been
on the RECEIVING end of my advice.  That is
BEFORE I was put into a strong, over-prescribed minus.

I wish I had received and used the preventive
information I supply.

I have posted discussion of these issues on sci.med.vision.

Because Neil D. Brooks does not like the concept
of plus-prevention he filed a "charge" against me
in the State of Pennsylvania.

Anyone can file any "charge" they wish -- for
any reason or no reason.

The State will respond as follows:

The response to Neil Brook's filing:

      ================================

      Commonwealth of Pennasylvania

      Professional Compliance Office

				       December 29, 2005

To:  Neil D. Brooks
5707 Stanta Fe St.
Sandiego, CA 92109-1622
Phone: 858--483-5292

Dear Complaintant:

      This letter will acknowledge recipt of your formal complaint
filed against Otis S.  Brown

      We will conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
Unfortunately, due to then uber oif cases, we are unable to
provide regular status reports or updates.  You will, at the
least, benotified of the final disposition of your complaint.

      Thank you for your patience.

      Sincerely,


      Patty Ridley

      Professional Compliance Office

Dear Alex (of i-see),

Subject:  Professional risk in helping a person with
       plus-prevention.

Regarding: The reason why and OD will not offer "plus-prevention"
       -- for fear of the public's reaction and law suits.

      Neil Brooks is an un-employed psychotic.  But he can do total
damage to ANY OD who would even SUGGEST the concept of
plus-prevention.

      As an engineer I post my autobiography on my site -- so there
can be no doubt about it.

      I ALWAYS state that I WISH I could be on the RECEIVING end of
my "suggestions".

      If I were an OD, Brooks would scare the bejesus out of me.

      It is sooo easy to just give the public the minus that
impresses them -- and let it go at that.

      And you know -- I can not blame them.

      That reality solves not problems.

      It also forces the parents to RECOGNIZE the limited nature of
optometry -- and why it must be limited by people like Neil
Brooks.

      A sorry lesson indeed.  And the real truth as to why the NEI
will not promote plus-prevention.


      Best,

      Otis

+++++++++++

Otis> Neil Brooks filed the statement to PA.

Otis> It turns out that Neil is a resident of California, and not
       of PA.

Neil> Don't let the facts (or typographical errors) stand in the
       way of a good story, Otis (I LIKE that!)

Neil> Incidentally, before I went globetrotting, the State of PA
       promised to try to contact the injured parties.  I'll circle
       back with PA to see how that's coming, though ...  some of
       the families I talked to were mortified at what they
       considered to be their own stupidity in listening to Otis
       and--likely as not--simply wanted to put it behind them.

      ++++++++++++++

      This is why a second-opinion optometrist needs to PROTECT
himself from these type of "charges".  I am very sensitive to this
issue.

      I have suggested to Steve Leung that he write up a legal
"consent" form to be signed by the parents BEFORE their child
begins the plus-prevention method.

      And this is the reason why I think it is necessary that he
protect HIMSELF in this manner.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

      Dr. Bates got a number of things RIGHT 80 years
ago.  And I RESPECT that fact.  Other pioneers
got the "plus" right.  But no one has yet
pulled together these two concepts.

      Here is what Bates said about the effect of
a full-strength minus on an eye with 20/70 vision.

Otis

+++++++++++++++++




	      From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates

	        (Clarifying statement)


      ...That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident
from the facts given in the preceding chapter. One cannot see
through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error
which they are designed to correct.

      But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself,
are never constant.  If one secures good vision by the aid of
concave, lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining
constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not
be maintained constantly.  It is only to be expected that this
should make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common
experience that it does.

      After people once begin to wear (minus-lens) glasses their
strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to
maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the
first pair...

      [I MUST ADD that the concept of stair-case myopia
from the minus has been PROVEN in the 80 years AFTER
Bates made this statement.  Otis]

      A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him
a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided
vision has declined to 20/200.

      [I will add this SLIGHT correction.  The time it takes
for your naked-eye Snellen to go "down" to 20/200 is more like
nine months.  But there is now no doubt about it.  The
REAL issue is to begin the "clearing" process before you
are FORCED to wear that minus.  And that does indeed mean
that you must clear your Snellen to pass the 20/40 line.  And
THAT is the main thesis of the Bates and "Plus" methods.
It is your insights about these issues that will encourage
effective vision-clearing for youself. Otis]

      We have the testimony of Dr.  Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich,
that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew
steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the
fitting of (minus-lens) glasses for them.  When people break their
glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently
observe that their sight has improved. As a matter of fact the
sight always improves, to a greater or less degree, when glasses
are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted.

      That the human eye resents (minus lens) glasses is a fact
which no one would attempt to deny. **

      Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them,
and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so.  Patients with
high degrees of myopia have a great difficulty in accustoming
themselves to the full correction, and often are never able to do
so.

      The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree
make all objects seem much smaller than they really are...

      These are unpleasantness that cannot be overcome...

      All glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less
degree.  Even with very weak glasses patients are unable to see
distinctly unless they look through the center of the lenses, with
the frames at right angles to the line of vision; and their vision
lowered if they fail to do this ...

      As for putting (minus-lens) glasses upon a child it is enough
to make the angels weep.

	    _______________________________________________

			     COMMENTARY

** Except for an honest disagreement about this statement by some
    people on I-SEE.  I would say "adapts to the minus lens"
    rather than "resents", but the implication is still the same.


      What is the final truth about the effect of the minus lens on
the natural eye?

      Did Dr.  Bates make false or misleading statements of
scientific fact in order to sell his book.  What do YOU think?  How
would you prove that Dr.  Bates right about the effect
of a -2 diopter lens placed on the natural eye?

Dear "Thinking" friends,

Subject:  General thoughts about "doing it youself".


In doing these reviews, I obviously was impressed by
the second-opinion Jake Raphaelson.

My question was, "... where were you when I NEEDED YOU"?

It became clear that (from the "Printers Son") that the
person HIMSELF would have to ASSUME control, and use
the correctly, and I hope successfully.

The work of C. Prentice clearly spells-out the difficulty.

The plus must be in sustained use, and the person
must work to the reasonable standard of 20/40.

Here is my philosophy:

1. If you cannot become part of the solution -- then you will
continue to be part of the problem.

2. Lead, follow -- or get out of the way.

3. A man stands tallest -- who stoops to help a child.

4. A "fighting chance" is better than no chance at all.

5. This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as
night the day, Thou can not then be false to any man.

I also agree with Tom Quackenbush who roughly said that, "People do
whatever they want to do REGARDLESS of the facts presented to them."

For that reason, nearsighteness prevention becomes more of
leadership of the heart and soul.

What I say is that plus-prevention is possible -- but it takes your
own internal "leadership" to do it.

Best,

Otis

Dear Friend,

Subject:  Plus lens strength, and Bates.

To determine the plus lens strength (which is normally
between 1 to +4 diopters), just walk outside
on a sunny day and hold the lens above the paper.

Then focus the sun ont the paper.

If the distance is 1 meter, the power of the
lens is +1 diopter.

If the distance is 1/2 meter, the power is 2 diopters.

If 1/4 meter, the power is 4 diopters.

Or

Power = 1 / distance

About Bates:

He and courage.

If it were not for him -- we would not be
posting here.

If it were not for  him -- I would not have
investigated Dr. Prentice and Dr. Raphaelson
and plus-prevention.

To indeed, I "vote" for all these second-opinion methods.

The only thing I ask is that you montor your
own Snellen to confirm "progress".

I also learned that vision-clearing is UNIQUE
to the person doing it.

I can make "suggestions" -- but in the
end it is you who do the deciding and
choosing.

Vision-clearing is indeed difficult -- as
I freely admit.  But it is possible.

And that is why we are working on
vision clearing -- to help each other
as friends.

Life is a JOURNEY, and we should understand
it that way.

Best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "dispersee" <dispersee@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, all!
>
> I started seeing my first improvements after practicing central
> fixation for the last week. I got a plus lens but I am not sure
about
> the diopter  , so I will buy a new one soon.
>
> I am getting better and better at relaxing my eyes and it seems like
> central fixation really works!
>
> I am progressively increasing the distance between my eyes and what
I
> read on the screen and it seems so effective.
>
> I am now able to "relax and see better" because it is like I can now
> kind of "zoom" (i.e. to fixate) to the smallest detail without
staring.
>
> I know this is more of a Bates method experience but I thought it
> would be nice for you to know.
>
> Will post when I get another plus lens.
>
> P.S. Otis, thanks for the link to the Bates Method forum!
>

Hey, all!

I started seeing my first improvements after practicing central
fixation for the last week. I got a plus lens but I am not sure about
the diopter  , so I will buy a new one soon.

I am getting better and better at relaxing my eyes and it seems like
central fixation really works!

I am progressively increasing the distance between my eyes and what I
read on the screen and it seems so effective.

I am now able to "relax and see better" because it is like I can now
kind of "zoom" (i.e. to fixate) to the smallest detail without staring.

I know this is more of a Bates method experience but I thought it
would be nice for you to know.

Will post when I get another plus lens.

P.S. Otis, thanks for the link to the Bates Method forum!

Dear Don,

      Subject:  Judy's Majority Opinion.

      I am an engineer. I ask questions about the behavior of a
population of fundamental eyes.

1.  Does the accommodation system follow the applied -3 diopter
     lens.

      (In any serious engineering investigation the answer will be
yes.) In Judy's "world" the answer is no -- but then she does not
have do design accommodation systems that actually WORK.  So let
us just say that her theory that the accommodation system is
"frozen" and is the majority opinion, and that the engineered
system is the second-opinion of accommodation behavior.

2.  Does the refractive STATE (measured with
     Retinoscope/Cycloplegic) FOLLOW the AVERAGE value of
       accommodation.  In this scenario, the accommodation system
       is CHANGED by -3 diopters for a period of 120 days.

      So how does the natural eye behave?

      Simple facts?  The refractive STATE of the young eye will
CHANGE by greater-than -2 diopters in less that six months, and
this is natural and NORMAL.

      That SUGGESTS that the minus is a real risk as a "solution"
for an eye with a SLIGHT negative refractive STATE.

      But then I respect the scientific facts -- and the
second-opinion.

      Others can evaluate the natural eye's behavior based on their
own judgment.

      Here is Majority-opinion Judy's further opinion on the
subject.

      Before a minus lens was put on me -- I would want to know
about these scientific facts.

      The consequences of a "wrong choice" on my part will have
LIFE-TIME consequences for me. That is too-important a decision
to be turned over to an optometrist in 5 minutes.

      I think the parents should have a full accounting of these
facts -- for the sake of their children.

      Best,

      Otis